Last week I began a discussion of the recent initiative from President Obama -- the College Scorecard. The Scorecard is part of the President’s goal to “equip Americans with the skills they need.” This initiative is described as follows:

“Holding colleges accountable for cost, value and quality: Today, the federal government provides more than $150 billion each year in direct loan and grant aid for America’s students. In an era of limited resources, we must allocate the federal investment in student aid wisely, in order to promote opportunity in higher education and ensure the best return on investment. The President will call on Congress to consider value, affordability, and student outcomes in making determinations about which colleges and universities receive access to federal student aid, either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.

A new College Scorecard to provide clear information about college: Last year, President Obama called for the development of a new College Scorecard to give students and families clear information about college costs and quality as they make decisions about higher education. The Administration is unveiling this interactive tool so that every student and family can gain information on individual colleges and universities – and compare them to similar institutions – as they conduct their college search.”

The Scorecard provides information on five key areas related to affordability and value: Costs, Graduation Rate, Loan Default Rate, Median Borrowing and Employment. While I fully support transparency in information and recognize these areas as important measures of success and value, I believe that the College Scorecard has some serious flaws.

First, we can start with the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) own disclaimer.  In describing the Scorecard, the DOE concludes with, “Note that the information included in the scorecard may not apply to all students.”  What makes this even more confusing is that it doesn’t tell us for which students it does apply.

College students are one of the most diverse groups in America. Colleges and universities are also incredibly diverse in mission, scope, focus, etc. A single Scorecard intended to be of value to all prospective students comparing all colleges and universities is limited at best and likely more confusing than clarifying.

Second, the five criteria on the Scorecard are not easily understood by many prospective students and families. For example, cost is provided as "the average net price.”  Many educators who work with college-bound students and families are concerned that this will be seen as a synonym for tuition and fees.  A statistic like “loan default rate” is also not easily understood by many users of the Scorecard.  In fact, each of the five criteria has been assessed as potentially confusing and incomplete.

These first two concerns can be fixed. Data can be organized by type of student and type of institution. Statistics can be clarified and more clearly defined. But my major concern is the total absence of a “scorecard” on quality education. While data on “employment” (yet to be published) will be helpful, this entire process ignores the central value of educational quality. And even if an institution has a high employment rate, how will a prospective student know if the graduate found the desired job and was well educated for both a professional career and for life?

Lots of restaurants advertise “a value meal.”  But value doesn’t necessarily mean a good meal, a healthy meal, a memorable meal.  Affordability in education is an important issue.  But the quality of the educational experience is also important.  It may be harder to “score” quality, but it’s worth trying!

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced the release of the new College Scorecard. First proposed by the President over a year ago, the Scorecard is intended to provide prospective students and families with better information about affordability and value. The online Scorecard is also intended to provide easier access to information and to facilitate comparability.

The Scorecard provides information on five key areas related to affordability and value:

     1) Costs

     2) Graduation Rate

     3) Loan Default Rate

     4) Median Borrowing

     5) Employment

In this address, the President called on Congress to “change the Higher Education Act so that affordability and value are
included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid.”  He went on to say that the White House’s new Scorecard would help students and families “compare schools based on simple criteria -- where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.”

This initiative is just one element in the President’s ambitious plan for his second term.  Just after his State of the Union Address, the President released what is described as a “blueprint” entitled “The President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America.” This plan includes four (4) overarching goals, each with a number of initiatives. The document also includes a promise that accomplishing all of this will not “add a dime to the deficit.”  The goals and initiatives are:

     1) Making America a Magnet for Jobs

             -Bringing good manufacturing jobs back to America

             -Slashing reliance on foreign oil and increasing American energy security through clean energy

             -Rebuilding and upgrading our infrastructure so our businesses have the tools they need to compete

            - Rebuilding our housing sector to grow our economy and put more construction workers back on the job

            - Encouraging fair trade and leveling the playing field by opening new markets for American made products

             -Investing in the best ideas to lead the world in innovation

     2) Equipping Americans with the Skills they Need 

            -Providing high-quality preschool for every child

            -Building the skills that lead to high-quality, high-wage jobs

            -Holding colleges accountable for cost, value and quality

            -Fixing our broken immigration system so everyone plays by the same rules and we attract the best 
                and brightest workers

            -Ensuring our veterans have the care, benefits, education, and job opportunities they have earned

  
     3) Ensuring Hard Work Leads to a Decent Living 

            -Rewarding hard work by raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour

            -Building new ladders of opportunity into the middle class

            -Securing equal pay for equal work

            -Making our homes and neighborhoods safer

        
     4) Cutting the Deficit in a Balanced Way 

            -Building on progress reducing the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion in a balanced way

-Reducing the deficit by $4 trillion as part of an overall plan for jobs and share growth and tax and 
                 entitlement reform

It is an ambitious plan, especially in light of the continued acrimony and lack of cooperation in Washington. And while I
applaud the President’s commitment to skills development, I think the Scorecard is both simplistic and flawed. It certainly
makes for good rhetoric and has some value. But it is lacking in a level of depth, detail and accuracy to really help
prospective students and their families make the right choice.

Next week I will tell you my rationale for this assessment.

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

Last week I shared my involvement in two national initiatives related to the gun control issue. I have participated in these two efforts in an attempt to influence the activities of our political leaders and to educate people about the many issues related to gun control. It is hard to judge the success of these initiatives, but I believe that they are worthy of my time and attention. Here is why.

My first reason is personal. I believe in gun control and am constantly chagrined when gun control efforts are conflated into debates about the second amendment and the rights of American citizens.  It seems to me that we can find a better balance between the individual rights of citizens and the safety and welfare of all of us.

I do not own a gun.  I never have and doubt I ever will.  But I respect many people who own guns.  My ten years of professional work in Wisconsin introduced me to people who hunted for need and pleasure.  Families in the schools I led hunted in order to feed their families.  Even more hunted as an annual sport.  For the most part, they were responsible, careful and respectful of the danger inherent in owning a weapon.

But I have also seen the violence and pain caused by guns.  I have attended the funerals of too many students who committed suicide with a gun easily accessible in their homes.  I have observed too many young adults throw away their future because of an act of violence.

So I publicly supported these initiatives because I believe in increased gun control.  It seems to me that we can do much more to limit the access to weapons, increase the oversight of gun purchases and sales, and control the access to weapons and ammunition that have nothing to do with personal safety and the sport of hunting.

I also agree that more proactive steps to increase the way we address mental illness are critical.  It’s not one or the other.  We need to limit and control weapons and deal more directly with those suffering from mental illness.

The second reason I supported these initiatives is because of the nature of my profession.  In fact, too many of the tragedies in this country occurred on college campuses or were perpetrated by a college-age student.  Despite our best efforts, most colleges have multiple points of access and students have a great deal of freedom as they live on campus and interact with friends from on and off campus.

Safety on our campus is a central issue and we take it very seriously.  But I think we can always do more and I support legislative and regulatory measures that may protect our students.

Some argue that we can never prevent bad people from doing harmful things.  I cannot disagree.  But that doesn’t mean we should not try.  We have an obligation to work for the Common Good.  We have a responsibility to provide a safe and welcoming learning environment for our children and students.  Increased gun control is not the only answer, but it is one of them.

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

I intentionally focus my public comments (op-ed pieces, blogs, etc.) on issues related to higher education and Catholic higher education.  Often, I comment on social trends as they relate to higher education.

Like most college presidents, I have many other ideas and opinions.  But I am always careful to limit my statements to those about which I legitimately have some knowledge and professional expertise.

Last week at an event I attended, I was chastised for not publicly supporting the gun control issue.  The person who spoke to me was both uninformed and misguided.  In fact, college presidents across the country have been actively involved in lobbying for more gun control legislation.  And I am one of the presidents involved in this movement.

There have been two presidential initiatives to address concerns about gun control and gun safety.  One initiative was led by President Lee Pelton of Emerson College and began with a letter sent to President Obama in December, 2012 which I co-signed with 255 other college presidents:

 Dear Mr. President,

Following your eloquent remarks at the Newtown memorial service, I am writing on behalf of the many college and university presidents who have signed this letter in support of your plans to “use whatever power [your] office holds to engage [our] fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.”

We are writing to lend our individual assistance as well as that of our academic communities in supporting a long overdue national conversation about mass killings and gun violence.

We acknowledge, as you have, that these are complex issues that bring into play competing interests that will require us to balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms with the concerns of those calling for more stringent restrictions on gun ownership.

Nevertheless, we ask that urgent attention be paid to developing measures that would have the effect of curtailing easy access to assault weapons, especially guns that can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition without reloading and have no place in the hands of civilians.

After the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School where young children and adults were gunned down in a blink of an eye by rapid fire weapons of human destruction, we believe that it would be nearly impossible for anyone with heads that think and hearts that feel to conclude that the status quo is acceptable.

We also ask that serious and sustained consideration be given to a comprehensive assessment of mental health and other societal issues in the United States that might have contributed to the numerous mass killings that our nation has endured in recent years.

History requires that we not stand idly by.  We will be judged by our actions in the days and weeks ahead, by how we answered, as a nation and as individuals, the question “what will we do?”

Our nation looks to colleges and universities to solve its most pressing problems and these are issues on which we stand ready to provide a way forward.

We, therefore, pledge to do what we do best in our academic communities: engage thought leaders, faculty, students, staff, trustees and friends in meaningful debate and dialogue, which, in turn, might lead to positive action.

We write to you in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the nation’s most effective prophets and servers of the community, who said, “I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow.”

 The White House acknowledged receipt of the letter in late December.  Subsequently, these presidents established a website: The College Presidents’ Gun Violence Resource Center.  The Resource Center has four main features:

• Permit signatories to post their campus events, news, and announcements about their efforts to lead discussions about gun violence.

• Enable signatories to view all posted campus initiatives.

• Provide links to speakers, gun violence research centers, news, and other information that will help signatories design, plan, and facilitate their campus activities.

• Offer a forum where signatories will be able to communicate with one another in confidence on topics of interest to them.

 The second initiative also included a public statement in December co-endorsed by 350 of my colleagues:

 December 19, 2012 

On the same day our nation learned in horror that 20 first graders and six educators were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, young people around the country were learning if they had been accepted to their favored colleges and universities.  For many years now, our nation’s leaders have engaged in fevered debates on higher education, yet lawmakers shy away from taking action on one issue that prevents thousands of young people from living lives of promise, let alone realizing their college dreams.  That issue is gun safety.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80% of all gun deaths occur in the United States and 87% of all children killed with guns are killed here.  In 2010, 2,694 young people were killed by gunfire. 1,773 were victims of homicide; 67 were elementary school-age children.  If those children and teens were alive today, they would fill 108 classrooms of 25 each.

We are college and university presidents.  We are parents.  We are Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  We urge both our President and Congress to take action on gun control now.  As a group, we do not oppose gun ownership.  But, in many of our states, legislation has been introduced or passed that would allow gun possession on college campuses.  We oppose such laws.  We fully understand that reasonable gun safety legislation will not prevent every future murder.  Identification and treatment of the mental health issues that lie beneath so many of the mass murders to which we increasingly bear witness must also be addressed.

As educators and parents, we come together to ask our elected representatives to act collectively on behalf of our children by enacting rational gun safety measures, including:

• Ensuring the safety of our communities by opposing legislation allowing guns on our campuses and in our classrooms

• Ending the gun show loophole, which allows for the purchase of guns from unlicensed sellers without a criminal background  check

• Reinstating the ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines

•  Requiring consumer safety standards for all guns, such as safety locks, access prevention laws, and regulations to identify,  prevent and correct manufacturing defects

The time has long since passed for silence and inaction on the issue of reasonable and rational gun safety legislation. We hereby request that our nation’s policy leaders take thoughtful and urgent action to ensure that current and future generations may live and learn in a country free from the threat of gun violence.

In January, the group involved with this initiative held an event in Washington, DC at the Capitol and a number of college presidents were joined by Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, as well as other national associations who share our views.

Next week, I will share why I joined these two initiatives.  My reasons have to do with both my views on gun control, as well as my views on the role and responsibility of college presidents in the public square.

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)

Last week I traveled to Washington to meet with several educational leaders and to attend the NAICU (National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities) Annual Meeting.  NAICU, with over 1000 members, “serves as the unified national voice of independent higher education.  Since 1976, the association has represented private colleges and universities on policy issues with the federal government, such as those affecting student aid, taxation, and government regulation.”

NAICU provides statistics to each institution to help them understand the impact of federal financial aid and to use in efforts to encourage congressional representatives to maintain and increase the funding to these programs.  For example, in the state of Massachusetts during the 2011-12 academic year, college students received 451,176 Federal Loans with a value of $2,826,624,741. In that same year, 140,448 Pell Grants were awarded in Massachusetts valued at $486,037,754. This seems like a reasonable investment in higher education. But sadly, it is not enough.

As I waited at the airport for my flight home, I tried to catch up on my reading.  I read a report that summarized a study conducted in November-December 2012 by the Lumina Foundation and Gallup.  Most people know about the work conducted by Gallup. The Lumina Foundation is a private foundation which funds studies and programs consistent with their mission of “enrolling and graduating more students from college, especially 21^st century students: low-income students, students of color, first generation students, and adult learners.”

What this study revealed is that 97% of the respondents (from a sample of over 1000 participants over the age of 18) believed that attaining a college degree was important.  Consistent with the Pew research I discussed in the past few weeks, the respondents related their attainment of a college degree with the ability to get a good job (96%) and to earn more money (96%). Even more, 97% also expressed a belief that a college degree is necessary to secure a person’s future financial stability.

However, this study revealed the barriers to attaining a degree as well.  And the most significant barrier for all respondents was cost.  In fact, 74% of the respondents said that higher education is unaffordable.

There are other important barriers for adults in the workforce who want to attend college to improve their employment and family situations.  For these adults, family responsibilities and job responsibilities are important factors.  While a majority wants to go back to school and thinks about this option, less than 40% express the likelihood that they will be able to earn a degree.

As I have written before, the responsibility for affordability does not rest solely with the federal government. But the fact is that the rhetoric of economic stimulus and job creation cannot be taken seriously in isolation from greater investments in people who desire a college degree.

If Americans want to attain a degree… if Americans clearly see a degree as critical to employment and income… then why is this not a central element of an economic stimulus program?

On behalf of the college students in Massachusetts who benefit from the current federal financial aid, I say thank you to our congressional leaders.  But on behalf of all of those left out because of lack of resources, I say please remove these barriers. And believe it or not, a vast majority of college students repay their loans.  What a great investment in our country’s future.

(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)